Who represents us? A serious question!

[Beebs]

A hell of a subject this. We have so many angling bodies and no public figurehead. Well, the CA and Charles Jardine take it upon themselves to speak out, but that's a contentious issue in itself.

 

It's something I have thought about that for all the 5 million anglers (?) there are ion this country paying out millions and millions of pounds for our sport year in, year out, yet the only voice that speaks out gets shouted down. Don't get me wrong I'm not a supporter of the CA but they're the only ones who are ever quoted in the National press when it comes to angling matters.

 

As for a joint body - well that needs serious looking at and implementation ASAP but how does the every day angler like me go about affecting this. Do I join each angling body and get them to buck their ideas up? Expensive and totally impractical. Which angling body should I join? Which is the more effective? None have lobbied me for my support in any shape or form. If a group needs members then shouldn't it have a responsibility to let those potential members what they stand for and what benefits those people might receive.

 

There has been a similar discussion HERE.

[Tog]

I don't think angling will ever have the utiopian 'one voice' as called for here.

Far to many 'single issue' types to be able to make it work:-

Live baiters V Non Live baiters

Fish Killers (game) V Non Fish Killers

Pro licence V No licence

Carpers V everyone!

Pikers V Carpers

Matchmen V leisure

Pros V Am

Bass V Cod

Sea V the world!

Etc V Etc V Etc.........

Now IF the CA have the 26K highly educated, proffesional and dedicated angling members as Peter sugests, then that is a very large voice and just a tad bigger than the PACGB! (which I note also claims to represent the interests of ALL Pike anglers!!)

At present the CA have certainly 'grasped the nettle' and their use of the media and other methods to counter the 'anti' threat and promote the general 'good stuff' that anglers do must be commended.

The very fact that they have managed to do something that the fragmented angling groups have not tells us that those groups have been doing something wrong!

[Leon Roskilly]

wearyone:

All serious points, there can be few other major participant sports/ activities that do not have a single truly representative body.

You'd be surprised!

 

My lad was a sports cyclist. Well you've got the Cycle Touring Club, and the British Cycling Federation (the governing body), the Road Time Trials Council, then the breakaway organisations that don't like the way the BCF runs the sport.

 

The problem with angling is that it covers so many disciplines. It is not just a competitive sport, but a pastime also, and I sometimes go angling just to fill my freezer (and a lot of other anglers as well see it purely as a utilarian activity).

 

Within the major disciplines there's many other different kinds of angling all with their own sometimes competing needs.

 

It's a bit like a single organisation trying to represent all ball players as a single sport - cricket, soccer, rugby, golf, squash!

 

It's impossible for a single organisation to represent the competing needs of (say) pike and match anglers, but that's not to say that pike and match anglers cannot work together under a common umbrella organisation to resolve their contentions and gain strength when addressing issues in which they both have a common interest. Step forward the NAA.

 

The CA is primarily an organisation fighting to retain fox-hunting and is massively funded to do so mainly by those who are interested in only that.

 

It's a very clever ploy to represent themselves as representing all country issues and the real issue being freedom.

 

That enables them to claim to represent millions more than just fox hunters.

 

And with their access to funding, it's no wonder that their professional publicity machine can get stories into the press about their 'representation' of 5 million anglers.

 

But when their objective is achieved or lost what will happen to that funding stream?

 

I've yet to see their submission to government on the effects of the Water Framework Directive on angling, nor the new Flood Defence Consultation, nor the Environmental and Fisheries Review, or their input to the Bass Management Plan, or their submission regarding the possible impact on angling of the proposed badly drafted Animal Welfare Bill, or their attempts to ban pair trawling of the spawning bass shoals etc etc etc.

 

And where is their representation of angling within the EU, where directives that affect all the angling disciplines originate? Genuine UK angling representative organisations are involved in EU consultations through the EAA - more work for our underfunded representatives.

 

All these and other issues currently being pursued by angling representative organisations.

 

A few press releases don't make for representation, just a bit of publicity for the CA and a strengthening of their claimed political clout addressed at achieving their main objective.

 

Look for the real substance, not just the noise.

 

Whilst the few overworked underfunded true angling representative bodies are doing the real hardwork to protect and develop angling they don't have the time or money to make much noise. But the CA do just the reverse, with their non-angling originated funding they make a lot of noise but fail completely to do the work!

 

Who needs your support most, and who is going to stick with you when the noise making is over?

 

Tight Lines - leon

 

[ 28. August 2004, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: Leon Roskilly ]

[Leon Roskilly]

Worth a look:

 

http://www.salmon-trout.org/political_unity.htm

 

Tight Lines - leon

[chesters1]

we have representatives :confused: no-one has sent me a letter asking what i think ,even worse the E.A. never has and they get paid

[Leon Roskilly]

A few organisational sites search to see what's going on and what they do:

 

SACN

 

http://www.anglers-net.co.uk/sacn

 

http://www.anglers-net.co.uk/sacn/latest

 

SAA

 

http://www.anglers-net.co.uk/saa

 

NFA

 

http://www.nfadirect.com

 

NFSA

 

http://www.nfsa.org.uk

 

Salmon & Trout Association

 

http://www.salmon-trout.org

 

European Anglers Alliance

 

http://www.eaa-europe.org

 

Anglers’Conservation Association

(Pollution Fighting Organisation)

 

http://www.a-c-a.org/

 

 

National Angling Alliance

 

No web site at present

 

National Federation of Fisheries and Angling Consultatives

 

No web site at present

 

Moran Committee

 

No web site

 

Angling News

(A good informational angling website)

 

http://www.anglingnews.co.uk/news.asp

 

Environment Agency News

(Often with items about or concerning angling)

 

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/news/?lang=_e

 

 

TL - leon

 

[ 28. August 2004, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Leon Roskilly ]

[Leon Roskilly]

chesters1:

we have representatives      :confused:      no-one has sent me a letter asking what i think ,even worse the E.A. never has and they get paid          

The representative organisations only represent their members Chesters.

 

The authorities tend to believe that those who want to be represented will pay their dues and become members of those organisations, those who don't are happy with what they get for their money - nothing!

 

They don't have time or resources to consult with every individual angler, certainly not on every individual issue.

 

The money you pay to the EA gives you the right to fish with a fishing rod (two actually), nothing more! (ps If you tick the box when you apply for a licence, the EA will send you a newsletter. Whenever I've needed information they have always been very helpful, and I've had a lot of help and support, and meetings, with some senior EA officials - must be a reason that they talk to me and not you!)

 

This is very relevant:

 

http://www.salmon-trout.org/Report%20on%20...ost%20BRITE.pdf

 

Having joined an orgainsation, you can either sit back and let others get on with it, or get involved yourself.

 

You get precisely the level of representation that you deserve. LOL

 

Tight Lines - leon

 

[ 28. August 2004, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: Leon Roskilly ]

[kleinboet]

There are two points I would like to raise:

1: Sport England hold a big purse string and the more given to an organisation, the less it needs from us,the anglers. So if, as stated, the JAGB is recognised by Sport England as the representative for England then so should we, we can then lobby the JAGB with all our praises, brickbats, ideas, suggestions etc. We make a point on all our postings about which organisation to back, here is the opportunity for US to back the one Sport England backs.

 

2: If Sport England is backing both the JAGB and the BDAA, then why don't those two organisations get together?

[Leon Roskilly]

kleinboet:

There are two points I would like to raise:

1: Sport England hold a big purse string and the more given to an organisation, the less it needs from us,the anglers.  

Unfortunately there are severe restrictions on what Sport England money can be spent upon, basically only 'sport development' type stuff child welfare, equal access etc.

 

That money cannot be spent on the important political campaigning, angling defence and representation, conservation type activities.

 

We need anglers contributions to do most of the important stuff.

 

Tight Lines - leon

[kleinboet]

Leon, While I will agree with constraints, Sport england is currently giving grants "to improve accessibility and encourage other disabled people into the angling community". I think that if an organisation such as the JAGB were lobbied by enough people on a subject, it would be brought to Sport Englands notice for their decision. At present this does not happen. Who knows, maybe (if they see the organisation growing) monies will be set aside (or obtained from the government) in order to remedy our complaint/suggestion.

 

[ 28. August 2004, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: kleinboet ]